Hi, Alexey,
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi John,
> On 11 May 2018, at 18:02, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> That said, I'm uncomfortable with using "=40" as a convention in
> the middle of an address. First, there is nothing that supports
> the idea of encoded octets in the middle of local parts and, as
> you know, there is ample precedent for interpreting an equal
> sign in a local part as an indication of a name-value setup.
As far as the DMARC workaround for IETF mailing lists is concerned, the encoding is an implementation detail and might change in the future. Use of = is in fact configurable.
The only requirement on encoding is that it should somehow be reversible.
Perhaps I've spent too much time talking to QUIC WG participants about header invariants, but can you actually change the encoding, or did you mean just adding a new encoding, so that if someone tries to respond to an earlier e-mail from someone with a re-written =40 address, that would still work?
Spencer
